If no deity or deities exist, in what objective way would the universe differ to the one we observe now?

[CyberLN]

@fireflies

USA already has gun laws

Well, those regulations are not nation-wide. Some jurisdictions have very loose (and often not enforced) regulations concerning firearms and other jurisdictions (very few) have comparatively strict regulations.

[Sheldon]

@fireflies

Once it is legalised, the fight will continue to make it broader, less restrictions,

Based on?

@mordant

Slippery slope arguments generally do not influence my thinking very much because they nearly always reflect the desire to preserve some shibboleth or other, even at the expense of harming vulnerable people. In other areas of life we don’t insist on the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They are also fallacious arguments of course.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

So there is no pressure, just treating the population like adults. If you don’t like it don’t fill out an ACD. Simples.

This is exactly what I meant, no one is advocating any law that would coerced or pressured anyone to do anything.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Here in WA, AUS, we have an Assisted dying bill, as well as Advanced Care Directives which are legally binding on the treating physicians. For example my ACD allows for palliative care only if it is determined that I cannot be rehabilitated to a quality of life that I previously enjoyed. This does include medical specifics which I went through with my GP and my specific wishes which we discussed as not contradicting the treating physicians ethical obligations.

That sounds very sensible, and if the law changes I will likely be having a similar conversation with my own GP.

[CyberLN]

@fireflies

As an aside, I also personally hate the use of the word “dignity” in assisted suicide, because it conveys the idea that the opposite is true - that loved ones who have died from long illnesses, awful illnesses, in pain and suffering, and so on, are to be considered undignified in their manner of death.

Interesting.

If I want to call wearing open-toed shoes dignified, would you think it conveys the idea that closed-toed shoes are undignified?

Saying something about one thing does not say the opposite about another thing. Considering that it does, imo, flies in the face of logic and reason.

[Sheldon]

@fireflies

The opening premise is yours

It’s a question.

@fireflies

“if the deity that is being hypothesised not to exist is a creator deity, responsible for creating the universe, then the universe would not exist”

I presented no such hypothesis, and that’s not an objective difference?

@fireflies

Consider the absence of a deity or deities existing, what would be different in the universe (your premise)

Nope, still a question.

@fireflies

Consider the deity is a creator deity responsible for creating the universe (valid representation of many belief systems)

But not an objective difference, you are assuming your conclusion a priori.

@fireflies

In the absence of a deity responsible for creating the universe, the universe would not exist

Only if one assumes this conclusion in their opening premise, by assuming without evidence that a creator deity exists.

1. This is a circular reasoning fallacy.
2. This offers no objective difference, and doesn’t answer my question.

@fireflies

@Sheldon

@fireflies

“What is the objective evidence for objective evidence?”

Not sure i understand what you mean sorry? Objective evidence for what, and why would it need objective evidence if it was itself object evidence?

The concept of objective evidence. If “objective evidence” as a concept is considered to be a standard for supporting something being true, what is the objective evidence for the concept itself? How can the standard be validated?

I made no such claim. Though it is clear that the more subjective bias one removes, the more reliable evidence becomes. If one accepts the lowest bar for example, purely subjective claims, then what is one’s criteria for disbelief other than bias for or against ideas and claims.

If one claimed the earth was not flat, or that all living things evolved slowly over time, these are supported by an overwhelming amount of objective empirical evidence, they are reliable objective facts.

@fireflies

@Sheldon

That is precisely what I said, and you disagreed, a godless universe would be indistinguishable from a universe with a deity, if the difference in uknown, or unknowable.

I disagreed

You said the difference was unknowable? How does one distinguish a difference that is unknowable?

@fireflies

@Sheldon

Well the one I observe isn’t hypothetical, it is objectively real, and I have seen nothing in it to objectively evidence any extant deity. Hence my question.

One universe is real, but logically we can’t claim which it is. If we consider the alternative is a logically possible universe, we have no means to compare them side by side, but if we did we can consider that the differences would be knowable.

1. I see a universe with no objective evidence that any deity exists or is even possible.
2. You see a universe where a deity exists.
3. If you don’t see any objective evidence a deity exists, then what do you see that convinces you any deity exists?

That is the difference.

@fireflies

@Sheldon

Well clearly you see something in this universe that makes you believe a deity exists, what is it? As that is likely the distinction.

Whatever is sufficient for a theist to hold a theistic belief is not necessarily transferrable to objective evidence.

That question doesn’t mention objective evidence, I’ve set you as much latitude as is possible.

@fireflies

If someone has an experience, for example, they can be certain that the experience occurred -

No, personal experience alone is notoriously unreliable.

@fireflies

if you walk into a room and someone shows you a replica of the Mona Lisa, then chucks it onto a fire and you both watch it burn to ash, you would be certain of that experience occurring,

I would not, and I would doubt it was the Mona Lisa, as this is in the Louvre.

@fireflies

you would have no way of objectively evidencing that it occurred.

Incorrect, the existence of the original painting would be objective evidence it had not happened as described.

@fireflies

You return to the room and the ash has been swept away and cleaned - there’s nothing left in any sense. No one has any reason to believe your position that the event occurred, and despite the absence of objective evidence for it, it would be eminently reasonable for you to maintain the belief/view that it occurred.

I disagree, and you never attempted to answer my question:

“Well clearly you see something in this universe that makes you believe a deity exists, what is it?”

@fireflies

@Sheldon

My question is aimed at people who believe in an extant deity, not a hypothetical one.

Your question is aimed at people who believe in a deity, yes, but your question is hypothetical.

Well their belief is not of course, so they could simply explain what they see in this universe that convinces them a deity exists.

@fireflies

@Sheldon

@fireflies

a hypothetical where you are asking how a universe without a deity or deities existing would be different,

Its not hypothetical to theists.

A universe without a deity or deities would be hypothetical to theists. A theist can also choose to engage with a hypothetical of a universe where a deity does exist. Just because someone holds a particular position doesn’t exclude them from engaging in a hypothetical for that same position.

Fine, but the attributes of this universe that convince theists a deity exists, would presumably not exist in a godless universe, so what are those attributes?

@fireflies

@Sheldon

The point is that no one should be forced or coerced, but should be free to decide for themselves.

The problem is there is no way to fully prevent coercion/force.

Then that would be true now, and a law that enables choice, but makes coercion illegal, need not change that.

@fireflies

People will die who would not have wanted to die if this option did not exist.

I see a claim, I don’t see any evidence for this claim?

@fireflies

How many people should be allowed to die that wouldn’t have wanted to otherwise,

I don’t accept the law should allow anyone to die if they don’t want to, You seem to be arguing against something no one else is arguing for.

@fireflies

Changing the law will give people the option to die peacefully and be free from pain and suffering in their final days, but in doing so will result in additional deaths where people didn’t want to die before their time.

Slippery slope fallacy, I am now calling this one, unless you can provide something beyond the claim and its repetition.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Here in WA, AUS, we have an Assisted dying bill, as well as Advanced Care Directives which are legally binding on the treating physicians.

Could you tell @fireflies how many people have been killed against their wishes as a direct result of this legislation, but that otherwise not have died?

[fireflies]

@Sheldon

@fireflies

Once it is legalised, the fight will continue to make it broader, less restrictions,

Based on?

I mentioned when I made that specific point that the legalisation going through parliament (must have six months or less to live, must be assessed by a judge, doctors, psychologist, etc.) would not help a number of people who have been calling for the right to die to be legalised, because they wouldn’t meet the 6 months or less criteria for one - people with locked-in syndrome as an example don’t have a specific life span, so six months, a year, etc. wouldn’t apply - they have a higher risk of dying, especially in the first year, but they can also live for decades. There have been a number of people with this condition that have been actively calling for the legalisation of right to die, so it is logical to state that if the current legislation was approved, given that it would not apply to them, they would continue fighting for it to be made broader and with less restrictions.

I also pointed out that there have been calls to reduce the restrictions already, so this is not just a supposition, it is an already proved point.

Further to this, it is also evidenced elsewhere. The following analysis is quoted from a “number of legal academics and practitioners”:

“Canada has dropped its legal requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” and is set to allow euthanasia for mental illness in 2027. The Netherlands already allows euthanasia for the mentally ill and has proposed extending the law to elderly people with “completed lives”. Oregon has repealed its residency requirement and it is only a matter of time until its limitations to assisting suicide and to terminal illness—now being criticised as “barriers to access”—are dropped.”

@Sheldon

@mordant

Slippery slope arguments generally do not influence my thinking very much because they nearly always reflect the desire to preserve some shibboleth or other, even at the expense of harming vulnerable people. In other areas of life we don’t insist on the perfect being the enemy of the good.

They are also fallacious arguments of course.

Fallacy fallacy - I pointed out when I made the first comment that it was a slippery slope argument, and I explained why it was not a slippery slope fallacy. Not all slippery slope arguments are slippery slope fallacies.

@Sheldon

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

So there is no pressure, just treating the population like adults. If you don’t like it don’t fill out an ACD. Simples.

This is exactly what I meant, no one is advocating any law that would coerced or pressured anyone to do anything.

I am not claiming that officials, in accordance with the law, would be pressuring or coercing people. Nor am I claiming that officials would be pressuring or coercing people irrespective of the law. I am saying that:

a) loved ones could potentially coerce or pressure people
b) An individual may feel coerced or pressured because of the burden on their loved ones, even if their loved ones make no indication of their being a burden
c) the general public - a section thereof - would coerce or pressure people given the opportunity. Notice I say would, not could. It is already demonstrable that a section of the general public express these views even without there being a legal means for it to happen, so legalisation will only increase that expression.

@Sheldon

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Here in WA, AUS, we have an Assisted dying bill, as well as Advanced Care Directives which are legally binding on the treating physicians. For example my ACD allows for palliative care only if it is determined that I cannot be rehabilitated to a quality of life that I previously enjoyed. This does include medical specifics which I went through with my GP and my specific wishes which we discussed as not contradicting the treating physicians ethical obligations.

That sounds very sensible, and if the law changes I will likely be having a similar conversation with my own GP.

Care directives are already available in the UK and elsewhere. People can sign DNRs, people have a right to reject non-palliative care, etc. - I have no issue with any of these options.

[fireflies]

@CyberLN

@fireflies

As an aside, I also personally hate the use of the word “dignity” in assisted suicide, because it conveys the idea that the opposite is true - that loved ones who have died from long illnesses, awful illnesses, in pain and suffering, and so on, are to be considered undignified in their manner of death.

Interesting.

If I want to call wearing open-toed shoes dignified, would you think it conveys the idea that closed-toed shoes are undignified?

I don’t want to get into a protracted argument about the rights to die. I do recognise and have already acknowledged it is a complex matter, and I think I explained the reasoning for my position.

I do disagree with your opposition to this particular point about dignity, and I think that instead of trying to argue my own case on the matter, I should instead point directly to one of the many existing sources about this very point:

Undignified Arguments

(To clarify, PAD in the quote means "Physician-Assisted Dying)

“In the debates about PAD, liberal proponents of legalization seem to accept without question that there is such a state or process as “death with dignity,” which is juxtaposed to “undignified dying.” It also seems to be accepted that both of these states can be fairly easily identified and that they carry great moral weight.”

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@fireflies

I think these issues all need to be taken into account when deciding legislation. I do understand it is a very complex matter and there’s no simple fix or solution.

Funny, as I said in my previous post , it seems there IS a “simple” solution. Our legislation on “Right to Die” involves two doctors and a mental health specialist and safeguards so that familial pressures or religious beliefs or those without the mental capacity are specifically forbidden.
During the passage of the bill it was obvious that ONLY the religious zealots were out and about complaining and using the same arguments that Fireflies is using.
Since the Act passed and the first voluntarily assisted death took place there have been quite a few. all without publicity, fanfare or the idiocy of those who want to control life and death because of their beliefs.
In short our RtD legislation works and has been taken up by other states and territories here.
The Advanced Care Directives had the same tired arguments thrown against it, it has been here some 5 years without issue from anyone except the same extremists who want to control everything. The ACD is stored on a government database in your name that is used by every medical professional so there is no requirement to wander around with a hard copy… even though when I was in a position to maybe activate it the Catholic nurse treating me insisted I needed a hard copy…quickly and thoroughly disabused of that notion by yours truly. She even sneakily gave me one of those forms that allows doctors to take over all your decisions…and tried to insist that I sign it. when I recovered I made a formal complaint to the Hospital and followed through with a complaint to the relevant minister., gave evidence and there has been no complaints since, at this particular Govt funded Catholic run hospital.
They have funded their own private building across the road where they can refuse female heath care and try ( but wont be able to) ignore ACD.

Sorry, Fireflies you are so wrong in everything you have written. Your arguments are all proven wrong.

[mordant]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

the idiocy of those who want to control life and death because of their beliefs.

It is a control issue and it’s an attempt to control something that isn’t theirs TO control. Issues of cost/benefits, (in)dignity, quality of life and interest in having more experiences is a matter for each individual. Yes with some safeguards and inputs around mental health and such … but still really no one can rightly decide for me what kind of death I want and when I want it, anymore than they can rightly decide for me what kind of life I want.

Even the matter of not wanting to be a burden to the family … is this a reason to control my end of life decisions because I want to factor in the financial or emotional cost to my loved ones? That should most definitely be part of my calculus.

[fireflies]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Funny, as I said in my previous post , it seems there IS a “simple” solution. Our legislation on “Right to Die” involves two doctors and a mental health specialist and safeguards so that familial pressures or religious beliefs or those without the mental capacity are specifically forbidden.

I have already acknowledged that as I noted the current legislation in UK has a similar process, but a mental health specialist can only do so much to identify coercion/pressures and mitigate that.

If the person they are speaking to doesn’t disclose the pressures or coercion during the limited time they are with the mental health specialist, it can go unnoticed. If they don’t realise they have been coerced or pressured, this may or may not be picked up.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

During the passage of the bill it was obvious that ONLY the religious zealots were out and about complaining and using the same arguments that Fireflies is using.

I explained my position clearly. I had a family member who was most definitely not religious, but they had a physical disability, and they were very much against right to die based on their own experiences with how they were treated by others.

I have also stated that from a religious perspective, specifically on the matter of people choosing to die, I have no objection to that in itself - in terms of “solely religious prohibitions” people should have the choice, not have them restricted by law.

My only concerns are the unintended consequences - people who wouldn’t have chosen to die if not for the legislation changing (pressure, coercion, etc.) and people having a reduced quality of life due to society’s increased mistreatment following legalisation.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

The Advanced Care Directives had the same tired arguments thrown against it, it has been here some 5 years without issue from anyone except the same extremists who want to control everything.

I have no issue with advanced care directives as I understand them from your description, things like DNRs, rejecting certain types of non-palliative treatment, etc. - no issue whatsoever with this - each person can choose as they see fit (presuming they are of sound mind, etc.)

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Sorry, Fireflies you are so wrong in everything you have written. Your arguments are all proven wrong.

They have not been proven wrong. I wish that it were as simple as being able to prove someone has not been pressured or coerced in any way, but it isn’t. If it was, I wouldn’t have any opposition to it.

Bear in mind also that I only expressed my views as a response to someone specifically asking for my views on this thing. I am not engaging in any activism or pro-actively raising discussions about it anywhere. I have not voted based on a particular politician or party’s stance on the legislation. I am just an individual with a personal view on this matter, shaped by someone who was very much against religion, so not a religious view in the slightest.

What the country ultimately decides to do is up to the government/people - I don’t think we would even have a referendum on it and if we did, it sounds like the majority support it.

I accept that you disagree with my views, and I am not trying to make compelling arguments to change everyone’s mind. On this of all subjects, I’m not looking to get into an extended discussion on it, and I would sooner we all accept that we have our own views and our own reasonable reasons for having those views.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@fireflies

it can go unnoticed. If they don’t realise they have been coerced or pressured, this may or may not be picked up.

And you are sure of this how?

@fireflies

and people having a reduced quality of life due to society’s increased mistreatment following legalisation.

Again you have knowledge of this how? There are fascists and “culling society” fans anyway.

@fireflies

I accept that you disagree with my views, and I am not trying to make compelling arguments to change everyone’s mind

I not only disagree, unlike you I have 5 years of experience of these laws and intimate knowledge of their workings.

You made several “belief statements” about complexity and risks, .yet here we are with someone who lives with these laws and you are still trotting out the religious talking points?

[Sheldon]

@fireflies

@Sheldon

@fireflies

Once it is legalised, the fight will continue to make it broader, less restrictions,

Based on?

I mentioned when I made that specific point that the legalisation going through parliament (must have six months or less to live, must be assessed by a judge, doctors, psychologist, etc.) would not help a number of people who have been calling for the right to die to be legalised, because they wouldn’t meet the 6 months or less criteria for one

So how would this very specific limit to that law, lead to lessening of that very limit?

@fireflies

people with locked-in syndrome as an example don’t have a specific life span, so six months, a year, etc. wouldn’t apply

And so are irrelevant to your claim. Granting choice to end your life with dignity, hardly can apply to people who have lost all autonomy, though for myself I would like to specify that my life be ended if I were in such a condition with no objective possibility of recovery. I have no objection to others deciding otherwise.

@fireflies

I also pointed out that there have been calls to reduce the restrictions already, so this is not just a supposition, it is an already proved point.

The fact that some people think the law should go farther, doesn’t mean granting the law will mean it will go farther, as you asserted, These are the same fallacious claims people made about allowing gay people to marry, destroying the “institution” of marriage.

@fireflies

There have been a number of people with this condition that have been actively calling for the legalisation of right to die, so it is logical to state that if the current legislation was approved, given that it would not apply to them, they would continue fighting for it to be made broader and with less restrictions.

I love the way you invoke the word logic, while using a false equivalence fallacy. As that is not what you claimed.

@fireflies

I also pointed out that there have been calls to reduce the restrictions already, so this is not just a supposition, it is an already proved point.

There are calls to legalise sex with animals, I read one on here, what has this to do with your slippery slope fallacy? Perhaps we ought not to allow people to use public forum lest they end up shagging next door’s cat?

@fireflies

“Canada has dropped its legal requirement that death be “reasonably foreseeable” and is set to allow euthanasia for mental illness in 2027.

It’s not euthanasia, it is looking at legal challenges by those with mental illness who claim they have been solely excluded from MAID. You also ignored the proposed criteria:

“82% of people across Canada agree that with the appropriate safeguards in place, an adult with the capacity to provide informed consent should be able to seek an assessment for medical assistance in dying for a severe, treatment-resistant mental illness for which they experience intolerable suffering.”

@fireflies

@Sheldon

They are also fallacious arguments of course.

Fallacy fallacy - I pointed out when I made the first comment that it was a slippery slope argument, and I explained why it was not a slippery slope fallacy. Not all slippery slope arguments are slippery slope fallacies.

I don’t agree with your “explanation”, was that not clear?

@fireflies

I am not claiming that officials, in accordance with the law, would be pressuring or coercing people. Nor am I claiming that officials would be pressuring or coercing people irrespective of the law. I am saying that:

a) loved ones could potentially coerce or pressure people

Which would brake that law.

@fireflies

c) the general public - a section thereof - would coerce or pressure people given the opportunity.

As they could now, the proposed law wouldn’t change this, sadly. Though the one has nothing to do with the other.

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

Here in WA, AUS, we have an Assisted dying bill,

@Sheldon

That sounds very sensible, and if the law changes I will likely be having a similar conversation with my own GP.

@fireflies

Care directives are already available in the UK and elsewhere. People can sign DNRs, people have a right to reject non-palliative care, etc. - I have no issue with any of these options.

Hmm

[Get_off_my_lawn]

@Sheldon

These are the same fallacious claims people made about allowing gay people to marry, destroying the “institution” of marriage.

I recently argued (IRL) with a christian propagandist(*) who made this very claim. He could not understand why gay people “have to” marry: “can’t they just live togheter and leave the sanctity of marriage alone?” I pointed out to him that getting married is basically just a secular legal contract, securing the contract parts economically regarding e.g. inheritance, to secure the right of one spouse to represent and make decisions on behalf of the other in case one of them end up incapacitated at a hospital, and (where children are involved) to secure the rights of both parents as well as the rights of the child(ren). All the rest – elaborate ceremonies, religious stuff, lots of guests, big parties, expensive presents, etc. – is just ceremonial faff that is irrelevant to the legal and contractual core. In short, getting married is essentially just signing a legal contract, the rest is just optional ceremonies. And the religious nutcases don’t seem to understand this.

The person I argued with didn’t have an answer to this, so I can hope that it got him thinking.

(*) a representative for one of the political parties here that use christianity and the bible as the foundation for their politics.

[mordant]

@Get_off_my_lawn

I pointed out to him that getting married is basically just a secular legal contract

Yeah and if you’re a church, just try to officiate a wedding without obtaining a marriage license from the state and see what happens. None of the civil benefits of marriage will accrue to the couple. Marriage IS a secular institution, and clergy (among others) are allowed to officiate at the pleasure of the state.

Whereas many believers seem to think the opposite somehow, that it’s a religious institution. You were right to disabuse the guy of that.

[fireflies]

@Old_man_shouts_at_cl

I not only disagree, unlike you I have 5 years of experience of these laws and intimate knowledge of their workings.

You made several “belief statements” about complexity and risks, .yet here we are with someone who lives with these laws and you are still trotting out the religious talking points?

I expressed my position. I made it clear where my position came from, and that the source was very much not religious.

I’m not looking to change your mind on this, or try to fight tooth and nail. I was asked about my position and I explained it.

I think at this point I will not be continuing with this particular line of discussion. As I said in previous comments, I recognise it is a complex matter, and I explained from the outset how my position came from a family member and the concerns they had.

What is going to happen is going to happen. I don’t have a say in it, and I certainly hope your view is the right one, but I’m not optimistic.

[Old_man_shouts_at_cl]

@fireflies

I certainly hope your view is the right one, but I’m not optimistic.

Despite the facts and results from every country/state that has introduced such laws?

I think there may more going on than your “opinion”. But, good luck with that.

[Sheldon]

Since we have not received an answer that demonstrates any objective difference, I am bumping this in case some of the newly visiting theists have any thoughts on this matter.

[MrDawn]

I’m sure people of different Theist religions are entertaining the same dark thoughts about you going to hell in their religion. I can’t take anyone seriously who’s beliefs are on the same level as Dungeons & Dragons. I honestly can’t believe you, a Christian, expect us to take you seriously.

[mordant]

@MrDawn

I can’t take anyone seriously whose beliefs are on the same level as Dungeons & Dragons. I honestly can’t believe you, a Christian, expect us to take you seriously.

In fairness to @fireflies, I very much doubt he personally believes in hellthreat and eternal perdition. Not all Christians (or Muslims, for that matter, and certainly not most Jews) take that dogma literally. It’s easy for people like us who came out of fundamentalism to assume that is every Christian’s view – especially if we haven’t had the opportunity to know the actual views and attitudes of more liberal Christians.

Obviously I don’t entirely agree with liberal theists either, or I wouldn’t be an atheist; I am just saying that they are generally capable of being decent human beings and playing nice in the sandbox with all us other kids.

I’d also argue that the existence of interlocutors like fireflies is a hopeful sign that theists exist who are not just knee-jerk authoritarians and hypocrites, and we can have significant common cause with them, if we so choose.

For a practical example, my guess is that the political protests I’ve attended in the US consist mostly of people who aren’t atheists, yet they can stand up for what is good and decent and right along with me just the same. It would be self-defeating for me to want each of those people to pass some purity test from me before I can so much as shake their hand, or before I can see and celebrate their courage or even heroism in the face of intimidation.

We can be united by our common humanity more than divided by our religious (non) beliefs, with a lot of people, and I think we should take advantage of that.